70's-80's CSG

ok, first things first. I've gone with hull number 52 so that in my ALTERNATE HISTORY there were ten ships of the Virginia and modified Virginia planned. I haven't decided a name for the class yet. Now onto comments.

MihoshiK wrote:

Having been drawn into this thread by the Tagger debacle, I have to say that it's a beautiful ship, BUT... I'd go back to the shorter version as a base. Adding that much lenght just to put an extra set of ABL's on it is not really justified, especially since it doesn't give rise to a corresponding increase in the magazine space of the other missile weapons. The MK-26 was never designed with a magazine larger than 64 missiles.

The Aegis update looks nice, although I'd change the aft deckhouse a bit more. Especially the early versions of Aegis took up quite a bit of space.

Thank you for stopping by Mihoshik, I'll have to thank Tagger if I ever see him again. I have gone back to a shorter version and given up the ABL's completely, for now. I have changed the aft deckhouse and you can see it here in this version, the room for it anyway. Please feel free to stop by again

Shipright wrote:

I would just extend it back flash with the stack.

I have made a more acceptable deckhouse for future SPY-1 installation. Thank you for your comment

odysseus1980 wrote:

In mid 1970's single Tomahawk boxes where also proposed together with the ABL.There are somewhere in the old part sheets in triple configuration.(Though I do not remember if hese are AU part or never built).

I have seen these type launchers, and I appreciate you pointing them out. I have cut the ABL's following that The Virginias didn't even get them until mid 80's. The ABL's will probably reappear when this flight gets the NTU in the mid 80's. Thank you for your comment

seeker36340 wrote:

The decision to drop MK 71 went over like a lead balloon with the amphip types that REALLY wanted that kind of gunfire support, or so I was told by some shipmates that went to ships of that type. The tests on a Forrest Sherman were generally very successful (if rather too big for a ship of that size).

I doubt there would have been any regrets in real history had the MK-71 been deployed. I have stood next to the mount at Dahlgren and its pretty impressive. I think had my ship actually been built, it would have come into its own during the Lebanon bombardment. Thank you for your comment

acelanceloet wrote:

virginia mass production would be CGN-42 class? that was the only way more virginia's would have been build, I think. the numbers of those would have been at least 4 (before cancellation) and go up to 2 per nuclear carrier at that time (authorisation in FY 79-83)
I think this ship might have been build instead of repeat virginia's though, so CG-42 and further would fit it too. especially as there is an non-aegis variant, I would suppose it would be pre-CGN-42 design.
the grey masts were between 1990-1995 on the spruance and kidd classes, which I think would be what this would be based on.

Thank you Ace, as usual your help is greatly appreciated. I wanted to point out that I enlarged your screw a bit and was wanting to know if its realistic. Also wanted to ask you if you know when LM-6000 were first used on ships.

klagldsf wrote:

I kind of see this as either a conventionally-powered Virginia follow-on or a greatly simplified and reduced version of CGSN, depending on how you want to look at it.

Thank you, that is about the size of it, stay tuned...rumor has it there may be a nuclear version of this hull in the future...

odysseus1980 wrote:

The Ticos numbers started from CG47 and the Virginias ended in CG41, so the numbers 42-46 are available for 5 ships.The real CG42 concept was to be named Massachusetts,so this could be you first name,find another 4 states for naming and you are ready.Try also to covert her to nuclear,but have in mind that you will need larger reactors from those on California and Virginia.

A good armament (my opinion) shoul be:
-2x Mk26 mod 2 (128 missiles total)
-8 to 16 Tomahawk (perhaps a non-armoured variant of the Mk143,or those Tomahawk launchers I mentioned above)
-1x Mk71 front and 1x Mk45 rear
-16 Harpoon missiles (4 quadruple launchers)
-At least one Mk29
-4x Phalanx
-RAM (after update)

Thank you for the information odysseus, I've never heard the proposed name for CGN-42. very interesting. The Mk-26 is as you say. I've deleted the ABL's for now but they will probably reappear in a future upgrade. I'm sticking with two MK-71 as they fit the back story that the navy wanted ships that looked intimidating to the Russians. Also I see no good reason Not to have both mounts MK-71 as I have plenty of ship for it. I believe the only reason the were thinking of the two different mounts on the Spruance class was that there wasn't as much room on the aft mount of the Spruance. We talked about the Mk-29 way back in the thread and decided it wasn't right for this ship. I'm thinking the three CIWS I have now should provide plenty of coverage, but I'm willing to hear arguments. I may update to RAM, you will have to stay tuned

Again I would like to thank everybody for comments and suggestions

Joe

Shipbucket

Who is online